Elements to be Implemented in the March 27th Version Update

Some of these changes are pretty drastic. Shouldn't they be tested on the test server before being implemented in the live worlds? Do they have to come with Adoulin or can they be put off until we're relatively sure they won't do more harm than good? I'm all for making irrelevant jobs relevant, but I wouldn't want that to come at the expense of everything or anything else.

Not everything has to be run through the test server (I mean, we didn't even have the test server for the longest time). The changes are pretty much entirely based on (or otherwise inline with) suggestions from the community, and Adoulin content was designed with these changes in mind. That aside, they have stated that they're unable to push out new versions within a certain time before release (I don't understand this, WOTG had two preparatory updates to make lives easier, both 3 weeks and 1 week before), and I imagine that applies to the test server as well. These changes have been in development for quite some time, so I imagine they're pretty eager to actually push them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concerned4FFxi

it's working just as intended...to bring sam out on top again, and again, and again. Because, they don't trade shit to be uber.

---

Are you trying to say SAM is currently a bad DD? I don't know where you have been these past years, but SAM is currently one of the best DDs with Koga or even with Empy/Relic SAM is fairly good and can imagine being even better with Last Resort update.

Its not that SAM is bad, its that SAM is not the best, which this will probably change since they have native defensive options for themselves as well as no defense penalties for their offensive abilities I believe.

Quote:

---

Enmity Adjustments
In regards to enmity, we will be performing the first stage of the content that was discussed previously. To start out, we will be making adjustments so that if the target is level 51 or above, the enmity generated in proportion to the damage dealt, and the enmity incurred in relation to the amount of HP cured, will be reduced. In the case that the target is above level 99, the amount of enmity generated will be reduced to 30% compared to before adjustment (the current level). We are also making adjustments at the same time so that the enmity gains from Cure V are reduced.

While this isn't limited to enmity adjustments, we understand this is an element that we need to continuously follow and address, and I wanted to remind you that this would be the first step.

---

I think I understand what they're attempting to accomplish with this adjustment.

However, in order to truly be effective I can see at least two additional things that need to be changed.

First, they need to increase the enmity lost by players when taking damage. And second, they need to adjust the abilities and spells tanks use to gain enmity.

The idea is that since tanks should be taking less damage from monsters than everyone else, they should be able to quickly grab and maintain (less damage = less enmity loss) high enmity levels throughout the fight. However, this idea has failed in that damage dealers gain enmity far faster and maintain it easier than the tanks. Reducing the enmity gain from damage is a good start, but if they were to also increase the amount of enmity lost when players take damage then it would be far more effective in keeping the tank the target of the enemy for most of the battle.

Picture a tank and damage dealer; the tank should ideally be capable of using various abilities and spells to immediately garner a large amount of enmity. However, the damage dealer will also gain enmity while attacking and at some point surpass the tank. The monster would then turn to attack the damage dealer and, as a result of being hit, the damage dealer loses enmity and drops below the levels of the tank. Once safely below the tank's enmity the damage dealer can continue to attack and slowly rebuild enmity till the cycle repeats.

Increasing enmity loss from taking damage would help immensely in making this idea work out.

Finally tanks need a way to gain that initial enmity spike that is greater than a damage dealer's attacks. If they made enmity gain abilities scaled with level then it could be a nice solution to this problem.

I also know that Trick Attack might be an alternative to the tank's initial problem with spike enmity. However, if they're reducing enmity gain through damage then Trick Attack's enmity will also be lowered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cair

Not everything has to be run through the test server (I mean, we didn't even have the test server for the longest time).

---

True, but these aren't just any changes. These are ones they (and we) need to be sure they're implementing properly. If anything should be tested thoroughly it should be these.

Quote:

---

The changes are pretty much entirely based on (or otherwise inline with) suggestions from the community

---

But not necessarily carried out in ways we asked for or expected.

Quote:

---

and Adoulin content was designed with these changes in mind. That aside, they have stated that they're unable to push out new versions within a certain time before release (I don't understand this, WOTG had two preparatory updates to make lives easier, both 3 weeks and 1 week before), and I imagine that applies to the test server as well. These changes have been in development for quite some time, so I imagine they're pretty eager to actually push them out.

---

No developer can or will test things the way their users can. I think SE has proven this as much or more than anyone. They've often shown a lack of understanding of how we do things and why we do them the way we do. Sorry if I seem insulting, but I just don't trust them not to screw it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teiei

I think I understand what they're attempting to accomplish with this adjustment.

However, in order to truly be effective I can see at least two additional things that need to be changed.

First, they need to increase the enmity lost by players when taking damage. And second, they need to adjust the abilities and spells tanks use to gain enmity.

The idea is that since tanks should be taking less damage from monsters than everyone else, they should be able to quickly grab and maintain (less damage = less enmity loss) high enmity levels throughout the fight.

---

Tanks should be the guys who are at the greatest risk of taking damage. It's their entire job to do whatever it takes to make sure everyone else in the group doesn't take damage, and they usually achieve that by taking the damage themselves. I think this change would be better achieved through more accessable equipment and abilities which increase enmity decay, not a complete increase across the board.

Also, these enmity adjustments are just a first step. They intend to make other changes as well. Probably not the changes anyone is specifically suggesting, but their overall goal is the same as ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demon6324236

Its not that SAM is bad, its that SAM is not the best, which this will probably change since they have native defensive options for themselves as well as no defense penalties for their offensive abilities I believe.

---

SE has been incredibly careful with SAM lately. Whatever buff they give them they can never take away. Samurai, as a job, is kind of fan service from SE to their Japanese player base. Nerfing it or otherwise taking something from it would be met with an extremely hostile reaction from the JP community. Many of the complains over there are about WAR's and DRK's being chose as DD jobs over SAMs which is a big no-no for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

Sorry if I seem insulting, but I just don't trust them not to screw it up.

---

After their history, you have every reason to be cautious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demon6324236

Wow, if a single event is the only time that the ability is not broken, then perhaps the ability is broken, and the event is as well. In NNI's case, thats what is going on, NNI is broken, and so is Embrava, a single event does not make it balanced by any means. People are not ignorant and think that NNI will be easily winnable, no one said that at all, rather people think its an improvement overall. You know whats awesome about it though? People never stop to think about if no one could win NNI at all. If no one could win NNI, it would probably be adjusted, but people do win, people have always won, and for that reason SE never really needed to change it because it was actually beatable. Legion is the same, people actually do beat it, if people never beat it, perhaps they would have looked into it a bit more.

Content which is unwinable gets much more attention than content that is being completed by players, maybe once this change goes through and people can not complete these events hardly at all if ever, then SE will adjust them more, enough to actually be winnable at a fair rate without relying on cheats, exploits, overpowered abilities, or pure luck.

As for your flawless comment, that is funny enough it made me genuinely laugh, which is rare, thank you for that. However, I have to say it is misguided and incorrect on many levels. While people may take my words the wrong way, I believe Embrava and PD were somewhat bottlenecking SE into making mobs that were overpowered because without making mobs so strong we had to have Embrava/PD to win, it would have been much to easy with them, however if we have to have them to win, its always hard, and in some cases nearly impossible.

---

For starters when I stated a "Flawless game type" i was not refering to NNI, I'm talking about Nyzul its self, the old school event. That's where it was at, yes the game type was hard and yes it needed adjustments so that you could get to 100 which they did. Yet they made it challening enough for everyone to want to do it, yet not so damn hard you couldn't win. Thats what makes a good game, making it challenging enough to where you dont' just blow through the event, you get there through hard work and perseverence. Not some band wagon shmuck SAM going in there and wasting it, but that it actually takes your head to win it. NNI in its current form does not take skill to win, that I will agree with, it takes luck. Which is mostly what my rant is about, by removing embrava you've eliminated the slight edge players have of winning. I can tell you right now Embrava doesn't break NNI in the player's favor, you can still just as easily get f*cked by lamp floors or by having consistent 2-5 floor climbs that will ruin a run. What I'm saying is if you're going to take our edge to winning this game type, then you need to adjust the game in its self. Give players a time extension of maybe 40-50 (Over all time) minutes instead of just the 30 if you want us to climb all 100 floors. With the adjustments now, you are going to have most groups just hoping to get to 80 and only dreaming of 100 floor.